Dr. Jack Daniels, Ph.D.

Dr. Jack Daniels is the head of the Center for High Altitude Training in Flagstaff, Arizona and a technical editor of "Runner's World."

Dr. Jack Daniels is the head of the Center for High Altitude Training in Flagstaff, Arizona and a technical editor of "Runner's World." He is the author of "Daniels' Running Formula," one of the most revered training books for runners. Daniels was a long-time coach at NCAA Division III power SUNY- Cortlandt, guiding eight teams to national championships. He was also a modern pentathlete in the Olympics. In connection with the 40th anniversary of 'Runner's World," we asked him about changes and developments in the conventional wisdom regarding running over the past four decades.

Runner's World Daily: Obviously, in the last four decades, elite runners have become even bigger believers in altitude training.JD: I tend to believe that altitude training can be a very positive experience. I'm not convinced that you can achieve any better results with altitude than without it, because the important thing is that training has to be a relatively enjoyable experience. By that I mean it certainly hurts, but you should be around friends, in a good training environment in terms of weather, heat, and comfort, and things like that. If I you find that at altitude, that's great. If you can't find that at altitude, maybe you're better off at sea level where you can find that. I've seen lots of people train at altitude and perform better - whether it was being able to spend some time away from all the other stresses of life, whether it's a training camp effect or just an altitude effect, that's hard to say. I feel, at least, that training at altitude doesn't make you worse. It stands to make you better. You learn to hurt more, and if you can carry that willingness to put up with more discomfort when you're back at sea level, then you're going to perform better.

RWD: What have we learned over the years about individualizing training?JD: What I feel most comfortable with is to try and identify proper training intensities and the reasons why you train at different intensities. I don't think I'm in a position to say how much of each of those things you need to do, because that varies from athlete to athlete and coach to coach. But it's fair to say that one of the changes over the years is to be able to kind of put your finger on how fast you should be running if "such and such" is how you want to benefit from that run. In the past, it was more or less run by feel, and that's still a great way to go. But even when you run by feel, you should have an idea what is the purpose of that feel. What's the purpose of this intensity of training, as opposed to a different run? So we've gone a little bit forward. We've always known that long easy running is beneficial, that comfortably hard running is beneficial, that hard running is good, and that fast running is good. We didn't always know why, and I think we've got a much better idea then we used to have. We can at least answer questions about why we do different things.

RWD: Have we learned how to pick out who will be endurance talents?JD: We've done a terrible job at identifying who can be a top endurance athlete. I think that's where we fall down more than any other area. The four things that determine success in almost anything - it doesn't have to be distance running but it certainly applies - are, number one, you have to have to have some ability. Number two, you've got to have motivation to use that ability from within, not somebody else yelling at you that you've got to do this because you're talented. You've got to want to do it. If you've got the greatest VO2 Max and the best economy but your lifetime goal is to be a concert pianist, sorry, you're not going to be a great runner. Number three, you've got to have the opportunity to do it, which we pretty much leave to our school system in this country, with a very very weak club system in the developmental years. Fourth you've got to have good direction, which means coaching or a teacher or some plan to follow. And if you have all those things and they're all positive, then we're going to be good.

But the number one problem is identifying people who have the talent. Every time I ask at a running camp "why did you take up running," many more took it up either to get in shape for another sport of because they got cut from another sport than because they want to be a runner. Less than half of them said they took up running because they wanted to be a runner. We're talking about elite runners in this case. I don't think we're anywhere near tapping the talent that we have in this country to be a runner because there's no incentive to want to be a runner. They want to be a basketball, a baseball player, or a football player. That was true way back into the '60s. Jim Ryun didn't take up running because he wanted to be a runner. He wanted to be a baseball player, and he got cut.

RWD: can we do more to get people interested in track and running?JD: The sport could get better press coverage, not just showing little bits. If you watched the NCAAs on TV, they gave it quite a lot of time, but not too much to the distance events.

Spectators aren't just happy with an exciting competition. They want to see a world record or a really outstanding "something." If we have a great race between two or three women and they're real close, I don't care if they're ten seconds slower than the record - it's still a great race. In football, we're happy to see a good game even though it might not set any rushing yardage records or anything else. But we're not happy in track. In running, if you don't set any records, nobody's interested.

RWD: What motivates kids to get into running now?JD: I did research with runners getting ready for Mexico City (in 1968 for the Olympics) , and I was surprised at how many of them, when I asked what there goals were when they realized they were a decent runner, said they wanted to break 4:00 for the mile or go to Olympics. I don't know how many of our kids have those kinds of goals now. All they want to do is be on a team. They're not thinking long-term.

At a young age, it's so important that they find some enjoyment in it We may be doing the wrong thing by telling young kids "you've got to get your mileage in." Maybe we should just be running them short fast stuff like they do in soccer. Then they find out they can run, and it doesn't bug them that a 50-year-old guy is telling some 12-year-old girl that's she's got to do a ten-mile run today. It may be the best thing for them, but it may drive them out of the sport.

It was high mileage back then, 40 years ago. "LSD" (long slow distance) was all the talk. Back in the '70s, I asked some guy at the University of Texas if he'd be interested in running the 10k this year. He said "no no, I'm only getting 80 miles a week. I can't race longer than 5k." Mileage was a big thing then, and I guess it's kind of a big thing now. And at the developmental level, I'm losing interest in (high) mileage for young kids, because I think you drive them off. One of my athletes, Vicki Mitchell won the 10k at Penn Relays in 33:01, and she never ran a 40-mile in her four years at Cortlandt.